The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 14 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Knowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of the Multinational Corporation
Open accessAbstract
Firms are social communities that specialize in the creation and internal transfer of knowledge. The multinational corporation arises not out of the failure of markets for the buying and selling of knowledge, but out of its superior efficiency as an organizational vehicle by which to transfer this knowledge across borders. We test the claim that firms specialize in the internal transfer of tacit knowledge by empirically examining the decision to transfer the capability to manufacture new products to wholly owned subsidiaries or to other parties. The empirical results show that the less codifiable and the harder to teach is the technology, the more likely the transfer will be to wholly owned operations. This result implies that the choice of transfer mode is determined by the efficiency of the multinational corporation in transferring knowledge relative to other firms, not relative to an abstract market transaction. The notion of the firm as specializing in the transfer and recombination of knowledge is the foundation to an evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
60 Own interpretation · 9 Own result · 8 Own method · 7 No full text of the sources · 5 Sources not found · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“strong support was found for the proposition that the choice of transfer mode is explained by the degree of tacitness of technology.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“They consistently show that the more tacit the technology is, the more likely it will be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The empirical results show that the less codifiable and the harder to teach is the technology, the more likely the transfer will be to wholly owned operations.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“They consistently show that the more tacit the technology is, the more likely it will be transferred to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The following investigation is meant to show that knowledge that is difficult to codify or teach and is also complex will tend to be transferredwithin the firm.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“The positive coefficient to Complexity indicates that as technologies increase in their complexity, they are more likely to be transferred to wholly owned subsidiaries.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ourresults suggest, though, that there remains a distinguishable boundary in the knowledge between the partner firms.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also partitionedthe sample by groupingjoint venturesand wholly owned subsidiaries together.The significance levels of the coefficients deteriorated.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of age of the technology is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above results provide support for the contention that firms specialize in the transfer of knowledge that is difficult to understandand codify.”
- Also stated in: § 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming]. · hedged
“Ourfindings suggesting that firms specialize in the transfer of relatively tacit and idiosyncratic knowledge are consistent with this broader evolutionary perspective.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming]. · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coefficients to the variables Codifiabilityand Teachabilityarenegative and significant, indicating that as the knowledge becomes more codified and more easily taught, the more likely it will be transferred to a third party rather than to a wholly owned subsidiary.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What firms do is to specialize in the creation and transfer of specialized knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The positive coefficient to Complexity indicates that as technologies increase in their complexity, they are more likely to be transferred to wholly owned subsidiaries.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Knowledge is transferredby joint ventures, but for uncodified knowledge, the preferred vehicle is transfer between wholly owned units.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of previous transfers is negatively related to transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries, contrary to expectation, but the relationship is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The multinational corporation arises not out of the failure of markets for the buying and selling of knowledge, but out of its superior efficiency as an organizational vehicle by which to transfer this knowledge across borders.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms are social communities that specialize in the creation and internal transfer of knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is difficult to discuss and analyze the growth of the firm, and its boundaries, in the context of comparative statics.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, these costs are derived from the efforts of codifying and teaching complex knowledge to recipients; more efforts must be expended, the less capable the user.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And surely, when such a decision is considered, an importantaspect would be the extent to which a firm has an advantage in specialized knowledge of cooperating with agents and the extent to which their shared knowledge will further accumulate and provide platforms for future opportunities.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Horizontal foreign direct investment is, therefore, the transferof knowledge within the firm and across borders, and in this regard, such transfers are the primary expression of the growth of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another interpretation,rarely discussed in the literature,is that technologies that are difficult to codify also representplatforms for expansion into future markets.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple respondents for an innovation were not used, though, for some questionnaires, one individual scored the basic information and another answered the section dealing with the manufacturing process.(As the questions did not reflect on the respondent's performance, the risk of misattributionis low.)”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A response rate of 80% was attained; the remaining 20% were similar in size and industry affiliation to the responding organizations.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By our results, tacitness will increase the costs of transfer and decrease the speed by which knowledge is transferred within the firm or between partners.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What our propositions and empirical tests have sought to put forth is the view that the attributes of knowledge influence the decision of where to draw the boundaries of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the decision to license is not simply based on the costs of this made relative to an internal transfer; it is also influenced by the expectation of revenues that would be foregone by failing to accumulate experiential knowledge in the foreign market.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We include these additional two variables in our estimations, as it is unlikely that the three scales measuring codifiability, teachability, and complexity (or any set of measures) can fully specify the tacitness of technology.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These findings are perfectly consistent with Teece's discovery that the costs of transfer vary widely.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Teece
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, it is reasonable to conclude that age and previous transfers act as proxies for a latent variable of tacitness; once more direct measures are provided, their influence should disappear.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These costs declined with each subsequent transfer and with the experience of the recipient of the technology.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece [1977] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Davidson and McFetridge [1984] similarly found that transferto unaffiliatedrecipients is promoted if the firm has transferred technology in the past.However, experience in internal transfers encourages more internal transfers in the future.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Davidson and McFetridge [1984] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Competition among firms is based upon their differential capabilities, and their abilities to expand by the creation and replication of new knowledge faster than the imitative and innovative efforts of competitors.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cost of the transfer of technologies should differ among firms, and these differences should have an effect on the desirability to transfer technology within the firm or by license, independent of the issue of opportunism.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firms compete on the basis of the superiority of their information and know-how, and their abilities to develop new knowledge by experiential learning.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In its more advanced evolution, this process alters the global knowledge of the firm and may result in its transformationtowards a network of subsidiaries characterized by the cross-border transfer of learning.20”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. Semi-Synthetic Penicillin:PENGLOBE1970 (ASTRA) 24. Selective Beta-Blocker:SELOKEN1970 (HASSLE/ASTRA) 25. Roller Bearing: CC 1972 (SKF)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, the view that we put forth is compatible with an evolutionary perspective on the growth of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One interpretationof this result is that firms are able to transfer these technologies at a lower cost to wholly owned subsidiaries than to third parties.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Contractor[1981] found thattechnologytransfer(via licensing) increases with the number of other firms using a technology, suggesting that spillovers can create a generalized and cumulative capability in its use.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Contractor [1981]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standardizationof evaluation systems and procedures is an expression of the shared knowledge, values, and assumptions and eases the transfer of knowledge within the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These scales measure the latent construct of the tacitness of knowledge.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At any point in time, given the current stock of knowledge of the firm, managers will face the problem of deciding how to service a foreign market: by license, export, or direct investment.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > 16. The validation of the questionnaire design and the reliability and validity of the constructs are discussed in detail in Zander [1991a] and Zander and Kogut [forthcoming].
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, novel technologies are likely to be less codified.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discriminant validity could not be tested by factor analysis, but a comparison within and between correlations of the items indicated reasonably strong discrimination.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Construction of the Measures
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings lend themselves to the interpretationthatthe experience in internal transfers is codified in a way idiosyncratic to the firm, but once a firm has invested in codifying knowledge for the purpose of licensing, external transfers are subsequently promoted.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Experience with the technology again points to the important relationship between the currentstate of knowledge andlearningcapabilitiesof the adopter.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a seminal paper, Teece [1977] established that technology is not a public good, estimating the costs of transfer to range from 2% to 59% of total costs of the twenty-seven projects he analyzed.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teece [1977] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The more complex a manufacturing technology, the more difficult it should be to transfer or to imitate.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But what is more important, the second point suggests a notion of team skills independentof individualswhich is difficult to reconcile with a belief that internalization defines the boundary of the firm.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One explanation is simply that such a procedure grouped fifty-three cases of transfer into the joint venture/wholly owned category, and only twentynine into the licensing/contract choice; given the sample size, this imbalance may have affected the results.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
hedgedconditionaln = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The problem with the argument that the firm exists due to market failure is that it is overdetermined; the assumption of opportunism is not needed, only the differential in costs in the transmission of knowledge within the firm as opposed to between firms.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > DIRECT INVESTMENT AND KNOWLEDGEAS A PUBLIC GOOD
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We recognize that this test is by no means fully specified.In particular,we do not look at the capabilities of the recipient.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 35 Swedish innovations and 82 transfer cases are representative of technology transfer by multinational corporations generally.
“The innovations were identified from a studyby Walhmark andMcQueen [1986] on 100 majorSwedish innovations.”
“The sample size of the tests thus consists of the eightytwo instances of the transfer of the capability to manufacture.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Markets are imperfect even if they rarely fail, and human behavior can be motivated by self-interest.
“Markets, even if they rarely fail, are imperfect; human behavior can be motivated by self-interest.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Knowledge transfer is not trivial even within the firm.
“That the transfer of knowledge is not trivial even within the firm is a fundamental observation.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > Results
“The number of previous transfers is negatively related to transfer to wholly owned subsidiaries, contrary to expectation, but the relationship is insignificant.”
§ KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIRM AND THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY OF THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION > AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION
“As a secondary interest, we test the variables of the age and previous times transferred,as suggested by Teece and others, and predict a negative relationship to the choice of wholly owned subsidiaries.”
Citations
Cites
Rogers, E. M., Singhal, A., & Quinlan, M. M. (2019) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203710753-35 · Cited by 37,670
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Loasby, B. J., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1983) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2232409 · Cited by 21,426
Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
Sitgreaves, R. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/018882 · Cited by 14,384
Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
O'Brien, D. P., & Williamson, O. E. (1976) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2230812 · Cited by 13,469
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Self-citationTransaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations
Williamson, O. E. (1979) · The Journal of Law and Economics · doi:10.1086/466942 · Cited by 10,190
An evolutionary theory of economic change
Winter, & Sidney, G. (1982) · Cited by 6,343
Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis: Frontmatter
Casson, M., & Caves, R. (1984) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511619113 · Cited by 3,745
Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Kogut, B. (1988) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250090403 · Cited by 3,333
Self-citationMarkets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications.
Ouchi, W. G., & Williamson, O. E. (1977) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392191 · Cited by 2,733
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [7]7. Quintus Type Steel Press for Use in the ASEA-STORA Process 1962 (ASEA)
- [15]15. Isostatic Press for Steel Processing 1967 (ASEA)
- [33]33. Casson, Mark. 1987. Thefirmnand the mlarket.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- [39]39. Hall, G. & R. Johnson. 1970. Transfers of United Aerospace Technology to Japan. In Raymond Vernon, editor, The technology factor in international trade. New York: Columbia University Press.
- [44]44. Hymer, Stephen. 1976. The international operations of national firms: A study of direct investment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (reprint of Ph.D. thesis, Department of Economics, MIT, 1960).
- [45]45. Johnson, Harry. 1970. The efficiency and welfare implications of the multinational corporation. In Charles Kindleberger, editor, The international corporation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
- [53]53. Nunnally, John C. 1978 (second edition). Psychomletric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
- [55]55. Rogers, Everett. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 3,993
Knowledge‐sharing in an online community of health‐care professionals
Hara, N., & Hew, K. F. (2007) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/09593840710822859 · Cited by 192
Narula, R., Asmussen, C. G., Chi, T., & Kundu, S. K. (2019) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-019-00260-6 · Cited by 187
Knowledge transfer between marketing functions in multinational companies: a conceptual model
Schlegelmilch, B., & Chini, T. C. (2003) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/s0969-5931(02)00097-5 · Cited by 202
Acquiring and Applying Knowledge in Transnational Teams: The Roles of Cosmopolitans and Locals
Haas, M. R. (2006) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0187 · Cited by 180
Mtigwe, B. (2006) · Journal of International Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1007/s10843-006-5872-5 · Cited by 195
POM Forum: Transfer of Changing Production Know‐How
Ferdows, K. (2006) · Production and Operations Management · doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2006.tb00031.x · Cited by 183
Defining the Concepts of Technology and Technology Transfer: A Literature Analysis
Wahab, S. A., Rose, R. C., & Osman, S. I. W. (2011) · International Business Research · doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n1p61 · Cited by 193
A model of dual organizational identification in the context of the multinational enterprise
Vora, D. E., & Kostova, T. (2007) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.422 · Cited by 177
Sustaining superior performance in an emerging economy: an empirical test in the Indian context
Chari, M. D. R., & David, P. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.949 · Cited by 180
Analyzing innovation adoption using a knowledge-based approach
Gopalakrishnan, S., & Bierly, P. E. (2001) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/s0923-4748(01)00031-5 · Cited by 186
Criscuolo, P., Narula, R., & Verspagen, B. (2005) · Economics of Innovation and New Technology · doi:10.1080/1043859042000315285 · Cited by 217
Peltokorpi, V., & Vaara, E. (2014) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.1 · Cited by 177
Rabbiosi, L., & Santangelo, G. D. (2012) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.016 · Cited by 185
The Governance of the Multinational Enterprise: Insights from Internalization Theory
Buckley, P. J., & Strange, R. N. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00920.x · Cited by 176
Sequence of value-added activities in the multinationalization of developing country firms
Cuervo-Cazurra, Á. (2007) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.05.009 · Cited by 175
Liou, R., Chao, M. C., & Yang, M. (2016) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2016.03.001 · Cited by 171
The effect of experience and absorptive capacity on foreign market knowledge
Eriksson, K., & Chetty, S. (2003) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2003.07.001 · Cited by 186
Hocking, J. B., Brown, M., & Harzing, A.-W. K. (2007) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.20180 · Cited by 174
The knowledge based view and global strategy: Past impact and future potential
Grant, R., & Phene, A. (2022) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.1399 · Cited by 180
Wholly Owned Subsidiary Versus Technology Licensing in the Worldwide Chemical Industry
Arora, A., & Fosfuri, A. (2000) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490922 · Cited by 171
The performance effect of organizational learning and market orientation
Jiménez, D. J., & Cegarra‐Navarro, J. (2006) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.02.008 · Cited by 174
From Wires to Partners: How the Internet Has Fostered R&D Collaborations Within Firms
Chris Forman, A., & van Zeebroeck, N. (2012) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1505 · Cited by 165
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., & Scuotto, V. (2018) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-09-2017-0407 · Cited by 178
Accessing remote knowledge--the roles of trade fairs, pipelines, crowdsourcing and listening posts
Maskell, P. (2014) · Journal of Economic Geography · doi:10.1093/jeg/lbu002 · Cited by 169
Linking HRM and knowledge transfer via individual‐level mechanisms
Minbaeva, D., Mäkelä, K., & Rabbiosi, L. (2012) · Human Resource Management · doi:10.1002/hrm.21478 · Cited by 170
Kafouros, M. I., Buckley, P. J., & Clegg, J. L. (2012) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.007 · Cited by 170
International Production Networks in Asia
Guerrieri, P. (2003) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203361115 · Cited by 168
Learning from overseas venturing experience
Tsang, E. W. K. (2002) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(00)00052-5 · Cited by 174
Toward a Knowledge-Based Conceptualization of Internationalization
Prashantham, S. (2005) · Journal of International Entrepreneurship · doi:10.1007/s10843-005-0304-5 · Cited by 171
A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems
Shin, M. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.06.006 · Cited by 174
Hernández, E. (2014) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839214523428 · Cited by 164
Organizational Learning in Multinationals: R&D Networks of Japanese and US MNEs in the UK*
Lam, A. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00356 · Cited by 167
Does Location Matter? An Empirical Analysis of Geographic Scope and MNC Market Valuation
Pantzalis, C. (2001) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490942 · Cited by 163
Language Training for Enhanced Horizontal Communication: A Challenge for MNCs
Charles, M., & Piekkari, R. (2002) · Business Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/108056990206500202 · Cited by 167
Harzing, A.-W. K., & Noorderhaven, N. (2006) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2006.01.001 · Cited by 167
How subsidiaries gain power in multinational corporations
Mudambi, R., Pedersen, T., & Andersson, U. R. (2013) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2013.02.001 · Cited by 165
Tacit knowledge sharing, self‐efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source community
Endres, M. L., Endres, S. P., Chowdhury, S. K., & Alam, I. (2007) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270710752135 · Cited by 164
Why in the world did they reshore? Examining small to medium‐sized manufacturer decisions
Gray, J., Esenduran, G., Rungtusanatham, M. J., & Skowronski, K. (2017) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1016/j.jom.2017.01.001 · Cited by 177
Knowledge Networks and the Geographic Locus of Innovation
Simard, C. (2006) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 175
Knowledge transfer in alliances: determinant factors
Khamseh, H. M., & JOLLY, D. R. (2008) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270810852377 · Cited by 161
Limits to Modularity: Reflections on Recent Developments in Chip Design
Ernst, D. (2005) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662710500195918 · Cited by 162
Innovation and international business
Cantwell, J. (2017) · Industry and Innovation · doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1257422 · Cited by 162
Salomon, R., & Martin, X. (2008) · Management Sciences · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0866 · Cited by 155
Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement
Andries, P., & Dirk Czarnitzki, A. (2014) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9577-1 · Cited by 178
Ernst, D. (2000) · Asia Pacific Journal of Management · doi:10.1023/a:1015809609118 · Cited by 159
Growing through copying: The negative consequences of innovation on franchise network growth
Szulanski, G., & Jensen, R. J. (2008) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.012 · Cited by 162
Huang, K. G.-L., Geng, X., & Wang, H. C. (2017) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2017.1117 · Cited by 155
Meyer–Krahmer, F., & Reger, G. (1999) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00019-0 · Cited by 157
The nature of multinational firm boundaries
Madhok, A. (1998) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/s0969-5931(98)00009-2 · Cited by 158
Corporate cash holdings, uncertainty avoidance, and the multinationality of firms
Ramírez, A., & Tadesse, S. (2009) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.02.013 · Cited by 164
How valuable is information and communication technology? A study of emerging economy enterprises
Luo, Y., & Bu, J. (2015) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2015.06.001 · Cited by 174
Immigrant remittances and the venture investment environment of developing countries
Vaaler, P. M. (2011) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.36 · Cited by 158
Global cluster networks—foreign direct investment flows from Canada to China
Bathelt, H., & Li, P. (2013) · Journal of Economic Geography · doi:10.1093/jeg/lbt005 · Cited by 157
Vlajčić, D., Caputo, A., Marzi, G., & Dabić, M. (2018) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.033 · Cited by 161
Brouthers, K. D., Chen, L., Li, S., & Shaheer, N. A. (2022) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/s41267-022-00521-x · Cited by 166
“Researchers may also move beyond the nature of knowledge – i.e., tacit nature of knowledge, complexity, and codifiability – held by firms (Kogut & Zander, 1993) to consider the tacit or codified nature of knowledge held by external partners.”
BackgroundHost-country environment and subsidiary competence: Extending the diamond network model
Asmussen, C. G., Pedersen, T., & Dhanaraj, C. (2008) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400420 · Cited by 153
Knowledge risk management: a framework
Massingham, P. R. (2010) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673271011050166 · Cited by 162
Zazo, J. I. G., Benito, J. G., & Vicente, J. (2007) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400304 · Cited by 151
When Do Acquisitions Facilitate Technological Exploration and Exploitation?
Phene, A., Tallman, S., & Almeida, P. (2010) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310369939 · Cited by 164
Steensma, H. K. (1996) · Journal of Engineering and Technology Management · doi:10.1016/0923-4748(95)00013-5 · Cited by 154
Ciabuschi, F., Dellestrand, H., & Martín, Ó. M. (2011) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01014.x · Cited by 151
Barner-Rаsmussen, W., & Aarnio, C. (2010) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2010.07.006 · Cited by 153
Acquiring tacit and explicit marketing knowledge from foreign partners in IJVs
Hau, L. N., & Evangelista, F. U. (2007) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.04.006 · Cited by 150
Entry Mode and Performance of Japanese FDI in Western Europe
Nitsch, D., Beamish, P. W., & Makino, S. (1996) · Management International Review · Cited by 150
Strategic Variables that Influence Entry Mode Choice in Service Firms
Peinado, E. S., Barber, J. P., & Hébert, L. (2007) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.15.1.067 · Cited by 150
Nordic International Business Research
Björkman, I., & Forsgren, M. (2000) · International Studies of Management and Organization · doi:10.1080/00208825.2000.11656780 · Cited by 149
Intellectual capital and corporate performance of MNCs in Serbia
Komnenić, B., & Pokrajčić, D. M. (2012) · Journal of Intellectual Capital · doi:10.1108/14691931211196231 · Cited by 152
Heiman, B. A., & Nickerson, J. A. (2002) · International Journal of the Economics of Business · doi:10.1080/13571510110103001 · Cited by 151
Business Model Replication for Early and Rapid Internationalisation
Dunford, R., Palmer, I., & Benveniste, J. (2010) · Long Range Planning · doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2010.06.004 · Cited by 150
Buckley, P. J., Glaister, K., Klijn, E., & Tan, H. (2009) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00607.x · Cited by 148
The role of corporate governance in FDI decisions: Evidence from Taiwan
Lien, Y.-C., Piesse, J., Strange, R. N., & Filatotchev, I. V. (2005) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2005.08.002 · Cited by 149
Hurmelinna‐Laukkanen, P., Kyläheiko, K., & Jauhiainen, T. (2005) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2005.09.011 · Cited by 150
Bhandari, K., Zámborský, P., Ranta, M., & Salo, J. (2023) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2023.102135 · Cited by 142
Knowledge transfer and management consulting: A look at “The firm”
Lahti, R. K., & Beyerlein, M. (2000) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/s0007-6813(00)87389-9 · Cited by 150
Motives for strategic alliance: A resource-based perspective
Tsang, E. W. K. (1998) · Scandinavian Journal of Management · doi:10.1016/s0956-5221(97)00036-5 · Cited by 154
Breaking through the cultural clutter
Magnusson, P., Wilson, R. T., Zdravković, S., Zhou, J. X., & Westjohn, S. A. (2008) · International Marketing Review · doi:10.1108/02651330810866272 · Cited by 149
Organizational capital as competitive advantage of the firm
de Castro, G. M., López, J. E. N., López‐Sáez, P., & Salazar, E. M. A. (2006) · Journal of Intellectual Capital · doi:10.1108/14691930610681438 · Cited by 156
Dau, L. A. (2013) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2013.5 · Cited by 150
Me, myself and I: The role of CEO narcissism in internationalization decisions
Oesterle, M.-J., Elosge, C., & Elosge, L. (2016) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.02.001 · Cited by 151
Organizing new product development
Becker, M. C., & Zirpoli, F. (2003) · International Journal of Operations & Production Management · doi:10.1108/01443570310491765 · Cited by 148
MNE linkages in international business: A framework for analysis
Giroud, A., & Scott‐Kennel, J. (2009) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.07.004 · Cited by 152
Tacit Knowledge and Strategic Decision Making
Brockmann, E. N., & Anthony, W. P. (2002) · Group & Organization Management · doi:10.1177/1059601102238356 · Cited by 153
Ciabuschi, F., Holm, U., & Martín, Ó. M. (2014) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.02.002 · Cited by 144
Knowledge and Organization in the Theory of the Multinational Corporation: Some Foundational Issues
Foss, N. J. (2006) · Journal of Management & Governance · doi:10.1007/s10997-005-3545-8 · Cited by 133
Rapid internationalization and long-term performance: The knowledge link
García-García, R., Canal, E. G., & Guillén, M. F. (2016) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2016.09.005 · Cited by 144
Does organizational structure facilitate inbound and outbound open innovation in SMEs?
Gentile‐Lüdecke, S., de Oliveira, R. T., & Paul, J. (2019) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-019-00175-4 · Cited by 167
Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions
Bresman, H. M., Birkinshaw, J., & Nobel, R. (2009) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.56 · Cited by 146
Knowledge dynamics in a network industry
Cowan, R., Jonard, N., & Özman, M. (2003) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/s0040-1625(03)00045-3 · Cited by 145
How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choices
Contractor, F. J., & Ra, W. (2002) · Journal of International Management · doi:10.1016/s1075-4253(01)00052-7 · Cited by 142
Knowledge Accumulation and Dissemination in MNEs: A Practice‐Based Framework
Tallman, S., & Chacar, A. S. (2010) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00971.x · Cited by 150
Özsomer, A., & Gencturk, E. F. (2003) · Journal of International Marketing · doi:10.1509/jimk.11.3.1.20157 · Cited by 139
Leaders, laggards, and the pursuit of foreign knowledge
Berry, H. (2005) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.509 · Cited by 141
Hierarchy, coordination, and innovation in the multinational enterprise
Mudambi, R. (2011) · Global Strategy Journal · doi:10.1002/gsj.32 · Cited by 142
Corredoira, R. A., & McDermott, G. A. (2014) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/jibs.2014.19 · Cited by 143
Unconventional foreign direct investment and the imbalance theory
Moon, H.-C., & Roehl, T. (2001) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/s0969-5931(00)00046-9 · Cited by 164
Fortune, A., & Mitchell, W. (2011) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.972 · Cited by 138
Is nepotism so bad for family firms? A socioemotional wealth approach
Firfiray, S., Cruz, C., Neacsu, I., & Gómez‐Mejía, L. R. (2017) · Human Resource Management Review · doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.05.008 · Cited by 158
Overstating and understating interaction results in international business research
Kingsley, A. F., Noordewier, T. G., & Bergh, R. G. V. (2017) · Journal of World Business · doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2016.12.010 · Cited by 146
What is a multinational corporation? Classifying the degree of firm-level multinationality
Aggarwal, R., Berrill, J., Hutson, E., & Kearney, C. (2010) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.11.004 · Cited by 162
Metadata
- Authors
- Kogut, B., & Zander, U.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
- Venue
- Journal of International Business Studies
- Published
- 1993-12
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 625-645
- ISSN
- 0047-2506 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-6990
- OpenAlex
- W3152457815
- Cited by
- 3,967
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 83 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 107 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 139 · 2018: 157 · 2017: 166 · 2016: 164 · 2015: 196 · 2014: 222 · 2013: 220 · 2012: 214
- FWCI
- 43.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of International Business Studies (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › International Business and FDI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Outsourcing and Supply Chain Management
- Keywords
- multinational corporations, evolutionary theory of the firm, tacit knowledge, knowledge transfer, wholly owned subsidiaries, firm specialization, internal knowledge transfer, technology transfer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
